I participated in the Women’s March on Washington last Saturday, January 21, 2017. I met my daughter and granddaughter from West Virginia and my grandniece from New Jersey, in Baltimore, the night before the march. This was an experience of a lifetime for all of us.

I left San Jose early Friday morning in route to Washington/Baltimore with a change of planes at DFW. As I was waiting to board at the gate at DFW, groups of women in pink hats started arriving and the mood and energy level changed. Aboard the plane to BWI, my entire row, the row across and the two rows behind me were people going to the Women’s March. Some women were accompanied by husbands, boyfriends and other men supporting the march. Many people (including men) were in pink knitted hats. Some people were giving out pink yarn bracelets. The excitement was mounting. People were energetic and chatty. Everyone had been to the Women’s March web site for information.

It used to be that demonstrations were spread by word of mouth. Take the Chinese students demonstration in Tiananmen Square in 1989, for example. A friend of mine was studying at Beijing University at the time. He heard from a friend who heard from a friend that students were gathering in the Square. There was no internet, cell phones or newspapers to encourage people to go. It was just people telling people. This is the way it was in the 60s and 70s, too. Just people telling people.

This time, word spread over the internet, on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and text messaging. The Women’s March had a web site established to sign up so they could get a head count and capture your information for future communications and donations.

Logos were designed and proliferated on banners, signs and t-shirts selling for upwards of $30 by some Chinese vendors. The buildup in the press and on-line was amazing and powerful.

On the morning of the march, we went to the BWI train station for the first MARC train to DC at 7am. I had purchased tickets the night before and thank goodness, because when we arrived at the train station, a little before 6am, there were already several hundred people waiting to buy tickets. We waited on the crowded platform, chatting with other groups from Florida, Texas, Kentucky and California. At 7am, the train came, but plowed right through the station without stopping. An announcer said that although there were only two stops before us, and there were five extra passenger cars on the train, the train was already full. He said that based on estimates, we would probably not get a train before noon. Disappointed, but not discouraged, we took an Uber into Washington instead, arriving in the city about 9am.

The Women’s March and Rally were supposed to start at 10am. It was quite obvious by 9am, that there were going to be way more people than had been anticipated. The official count was 500,000+ and several unofficial counts said 1.2 million. I’m going with a million – it certainly felt that way. There were people in pink hats everywhere, in every direction, on every street and in every driveway. People were sitting on ledges and leaning against buildings. We tried to move toward a jumbotron or the main platform but could not get anywhere close. We were shoulder to shoulder with no room to move in any direction.

After about two hours of speeches, the organizers announced that there were just too many people to march together and recommended the people in our area march forward down Independence Avenue, which we did. We were encouraged to leave our signs at the Trump Hotel or in front of the White House. It had been many hours since we left the hotel in the early morning, so we also waited in long lines for port-a-potties. We brought granola bars, nuts and water with us, thank goodness, because there was no way to get anywhere near to any restaurants.

We marched a couple of miles down Independence Ave. and toward the Capitol and chanted slogans with thousands of others. My favorite chant was “Show us what democracy looks like,” and the reply: “THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE.”

At about 4 pm, we headed to the Metro to try to at least get away from the city. Again, it was jammed and after a few trains passed through the station, we managed to squeeze into a Bethesda train. This reminded me of trains in Japan, where you get pushed together by train officials until they can close the doors. We were all smashed together.

Officials who had organized the marches later reported 673 marches had taken place worldwide, with marches occurring on all seven continents, including Antarctica. In Washington D.C. alone, the protests were reported to be the largest political demonstrations since the anti–Vietnam War protests in the 60’s and 70’s, with both protests drawing similar numbers. The Women’s March crowds were peaceful, and no arrests were made in Washington, D.C. I heard on the news on Saturday night that officials also said this was one of the cleanest events ever. Apparently women tend to clean up after themselves.

This was the kind of event you remember you entire life. I am so glad I could go with my family, especially my 12-year-old granddaughter. There were many lessons to learn about our democracy.

I met the most remarkable woman by chance at a holiday party. Mrs. Zhao is a retired professor and researcher from UCLA. She was friendly and sociable and when I asked her what she did, she started to unravel her story for me. Realizing that I am familiar with Chinese history and culture, she told me more than would normally be expected in polite conversation.

In the 1960s she was a Professor of Physics at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangdong, China. This was during the Cultural Revolution when Mao Zedong shut down all the universities because they were considered elitist and not revolutionary. When her university was closed, she was sent to a farm to be educated in the ways of working farmers. She plowed fields for three years as she was being “re-educated.” All day long the workers had to shout “long live Chairman Mao” as they plowed. At night she taught the farmers to read and write.

During these years she never protested or complained, because to do so meant sure retribution including being denied meals, beatings and the infamous “struggle sessions” where people were forced to confess their “crimes” against the revolution. This was a difficult time in China, particularly for the well educated people and those in traditional arts. These people were viewed as proponents of the “old ways” and counterrevolutionaries. She told me that her colleagues were beaten and starved for disagreeing with the communist party bosses. Many people died in prison or from beatings after struggle sessions, if they did not confess.

When the University reopened, farmers were sent there together with the previous students. No matter their educational level or experience, everyone sat in classrooms together to learn from Mao’s Little Red Book. No other books were available for any subject because the books had all been burned by the Red Guard.

In 1982, a former colleague invited her to come to America to continue her research in microwave physics. She came to UCLA, where she continued her research and teaching for 25 years.

I know other people who lived through the Cultural Revolution and they will say that the period of struggle and change was worth it for China to emerge as the power house it is today. They will say that Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong, and that he brought China through a metamorphosis and into its industrial age. But Mrs. Zhao’s story and the way she told it to me touched a very emotional chord.

While China came out of the Great Famine and Cultural Revolution stronger, the effects are still apparent today. People in China are reluctant to talk about the government and its policies. China’s education system is rigid and structured around a fixed curriculum. Students are not taught or encouraged to think critically. A back-door culture has developed where things get done behind the scenes or through the “back door” and where priorities are set according to who you know and what influence you have. As a result, creativity and innovation have suffered over the past 30 or 40 years, which has resulted in a copy-cat business environment. Only now, with talented engineers, scientists and business people being trained in China’s top universities and in America and Europe, the historical and exceptional creativity and inventiveness of the Chinese is being renewed. The Chinese have a long history of invention and now it is blooming again.

There are lessons we must learn from history in China, America and other countries. We must do all possible to protect our education systems for all Americans at all levels. We must not allow the elites or political parties in power to dismiss or reduce funding to our schools. We must defend the objectivity and teaching of the sciences. We must be vigilant in maintaining high standards for STEM education. We must support and defend teachers and researchers. These people are building our future through our children and grandchildren.

Hoverboards are very popular holiday gifts this year, but the stories about the boards that explode are all over the news. Many retailers including Amazon.com and Target stopped selling them, and several commercial airlines banned them aboard their aircraft.

So what happened in the manufacture of these items to make them so dangerous? In the reported incidents, the lithium ion batteries in the hoverboards caught fire while charging or just riding them. The reasons for the combustion process is well-known when a battery is defective. The problems with these batteries were identified in laptops and cell phones a few years ago. What isn’t so transparent are the sourcing and manufacturing processes for the boards being produced in China.

Hoverboards are new, exciting and popular products and this combination creates a frenzy of manufacturing opportunity for Chinese manufacturers. Because of the popularity and the potential for high volumes and high profits, knock-off brands proliferate very fast in the extremely competitive changed to avoid patent infringement laws. The raw materials sourcing for knock-offs may come from completely different suppliers. Cheaper knock-off products means cutting corners in the factory to keep production costs low.

US safety standards are not all in place yet for these new products. US Customs may be allowing imports to enter the US based on safety standards for similar products, following the current requirements for imports. Some manufacturers may have obtained UL certificates on certain component parts, but not for the hoverboard as a whole. Raw materials such as the actual batteries may be knock-offs, too. You cannot trust the well-known top brands either. The high demand is likely to cause sourcing from multiple Chinese factories with limited experience and untested component suppliers. No Chinese agency is overseeing the quality of exports from China.

I can’t get that hit rock song by the Clash, “Should I Stay or Should I Go” out of my head.

“Should I Stay Or Should I Go” by the ClashDarling, you gotta let me know Should I stay or should I go? If you say that you are mine I’ll be here ‘till the end of time But you gotta let me know Should I stay or should I go?

I’ve been talking to companies that are now making decisions about keeping their manufacturing and supply base in China or bringing manufacturing back to the US. They are asking the question, “Should I stay or should I go?” and that triggers the song playing in my brain…over and over and over. I wake up hearing it and it plays in my head all day long.
In the 1990s and 2000s, companies went to China out of fear of being left behind, not necessarily because they had made an informed decision based on data about the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Now it seems they are coming back for fear of being left behind again.
Total Cost of Ownership is an all-encompassing estimate that helps business people determine direct, indirect and consequential costs of one decision versus another. The idea was developed in the 1980s and applied to the costs of implementing software over its entire lifecycle. But when using TCO in a manufacturing or sourcing decision to stay in China versus moving back to the US, there are many more components to monetize and compare.
For example, you may find additional factors that must be considered beyond simple labor costs, import and logistics costs, such as supply base considerations, automation opportunities, supply chain latency, cost of travel, IP theft, quality and so on.
There are also costs associated with leaving China such as buying out employment contracts, obtaining permits to shut down operations, and the tools and dies left behind. The legal ramifications of these things can add up quickly. There is a lot to consider and trying to monetize all of the hard and soft benefits can be very challenging.
Nonetheless, it is important to consider all costs for a true comparison before you decide, “Should I Stay of Should I Go?’

The TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trade Agreement) is at best, difficult to understand. There are a lot of arguments to be made on both sides of the agreement and it can be tough to wade through all of them and read the long associated text in articles for and against. So let me simplify why I am for it.

Increased trade helps create more jobs, including manufacturing jobs that pay more. In our quest to reshore manufacturing, we are trying hard to rebuild manufacturing in the US and the TPP will help. One out of every five jobs in the US can be tied to international trade (about 38 million jobs).

Manufacturing jobs pay better (about 18% better than other jobs). In the US, manufacturing jobs pay between $65K and $85K – squarely in the middle class. And middle class people buy houses, cars, big-screen TVs; they shop at Walmart and send their kids to college. They are the heart and soul of the United States and keep our middle-class economy going strong.

95% of consumers live outside of the US and with the middle classes growing worldwide, particularly in Asia, our US export markets can be expected to grow. Manufacturing products in America for export put US residents to work, and that is good for all of us.

Trade agreements level the playing field. It’s no secret that foreign governments offer incentives and subsidies to their own manufacturers and exporters. And because the US has such an open-economy, allowing for all kinds of imports, we are seen as a big, red target market for foreign products. Trade agreements put equal rules in place so that all signatories have to play by the same rules and regulations. This will help our exporters and slow or stop unfair imports into the US. We will have legal recourse when the rules aren’t followed.

Small and medium-sized exporters benefit the most because the regulatory hurdles and challenges of foreign countries are standardized or removed. In addition, we see the most reshoring activity happening in small and medium sized companies, so growth in manufacturing is in the US, plus an improved ability to export. The projections say that 98 percent of these companies will benefit from TPP.

Those countries participating in TPP will be required to abide by environmental and labor conditions oversight. While this may not fix the pollution and human rights issues in all participating nations, it is a very strong step in the right direction.

If we sit back and do nothing, surely China will step in with an overriding agreement of their own and it may not be so favorable toward US manufacturers. With TPP passage, we will continue to play a leadership role in Pacific trade.

The bottom line for me is the test of rebuilding the middle class in America through manufacturing. TPP will do that by giving access to export markets for small and medium-sized manufacturers. And that is good for America.

We have been working hard over the past couple of years to help companies evaluate and plan for bringing manufacturing back to America. We believe it’s important to rebuild the American economy and in particular, the middle class. Rebuilding our strength in the manufacturing sector is one important way.

For every new manufacturing job created, there are about 1.5 additional jobs created. This is because manufacturing workers spend their money on houses, cars, consumer electronics, food and clothing which drives employment and economic growth in other sectors. All this spending has a remarkably positive economic effect. Communities thrive, employment rates improve and the American dream is once again revived.

Although we have been assisting clients in their Reshoring efforts, we decided to broaden our efforts by establishing a research and support institute. This gave rise to the Reshoring Institute, a collaboration with the University of San Diego. The Institute is a 501c3 Non-profit organization and survives on tax-deductible donations.

Our Mission

Reshoring Institute provides research and support for companies bringing manufacturing and services back to the America.

Our Vision

In collaboration with the University of San Diego Supply Chain Management Institute, we provide information, research and support for companies trying to “Reshore” or bring manufacturing and services back to America. This may include things like site selection, tax incentives, science and math education, marketing and PR and cost comparison development. We direct this Reshoring work and include student interns in support of research projects and consulting projects.

You can read more about the Institute here: www.ReshoringInstitute.org or contact Rosemary Coates, Executive Director at rcoates@ReshoringInstitute.org

I took the bullet train from Shanghai to Nanjing today, a journey in a pleasant 1st class, sparkling clean rail car at 200 km/hour, for about $30. Rail is such a great way to travel in China. It’s efficient, convenient and inexpensive, plus you see things you would never see from an airplane.

Along the way, in every direction, are miles and miles of factories. They come in all shapes and sizes – small and squat to enormous smokestacks –apparently producing simple assembled products, electronics, plastics, castings and everything you can think of in between.

Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei told the G-20 meeting in 2014 that manufacturing accounts for nearly 60% of Chinese GDP, an unsustainable share which has created the problems of pollution and overcapacity, he said. This is very evident as I traveled through the manufacturing areas between Shanghai, Wuxi and Nanjing. The pollution was overwhelming; the skies were thick with a smoky fog and the sun was a muted disk low in the sky. The pollution gets so bad from time to time that people wear surgical masks whenever they are outside during the most dangerous periods.

The Chinese government is no longer shying away from or denying allegations of the horrendous air quality. In fact, in the latest government Five-Year- Plan, China is finally putting real muscle and money into environmental clean-up. I expect to see substantial improvement over the next few years. In addition, China plans to use the excess manufacturing capacity to address the needs of their own burgeoning middle class by producing products demanded at home.

Americans need to work on balancing the difference between the Chinese economy supported by 60% manufacturing and the US economy where only 11-12% is based on manufacturing. Manufacturing is the fundamental backbone of a healthy economy. We need to bring some of it back to the US- but very carefully. We want skilled jobs that pay a living wage and don’t pollute the environment.

I am in China again this week and it seems everyone wants to know about the US elections. They watched the Presidential debates and the election news with great interest and a kind of wondrous amazement. “We heard what your politicians believe and what they will do,” one executive told me. “In China, we have no idea what the policies of the leaders will be.”

I hadn’t really considered the difference in politics this way. Americans have access, information and a fundamental understanding of what the leadership is planning. Chinese people have none of this. Most people have no clue about what is in the new Chinese 5-year plan, or how the new Communist Party Chief Xi will lead the country.

With the US elections now over and Obama reelected, the new President Xi assuming the leadership of China and Putin in Russia, we should all be wondering what will change in the world. These three super-powers will surely bring dynamic change in the world order.

The Chinese Communist Party began its leadership transition as the 18th National Congress opened in early November. This transition in leadership happens only once every 10 years. The new President Xi will be charged with executing the new Chinese 5-year Plan, developed earlier this year. This plan includes a heavy emphasis on the environment, and from what I have observed in China, whatever the government decides to do, gets done.

In the US we have had the privilege of watching the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, listened to endless TV advertising and news reports. We have a pretty good idea about the President’s agenda. But how that agenda will interact with Xi’s and Putin’s is a big unknown.

I spend most of my time working on global supply chain consulting engagements. But from time to time, I also do Expert Witness work for legal cases involving supply chain issues. At the moment, I am working on a legal case involving agri-business across Malaysia and Indonesia.

palm oil fruit

Arriving after midnight last night, I couldn’t help feeling a little creepy as we sped from the airport to town in a rickety old taxi. The third world flew by the windows. The ancient driver was going 140km/hr until I begged him to slow down. What if we broke down or had an accident? Were there headhunters lurking? The $50 “best hotel in Sabah” turned out to be rather scruffy around the edges and even the bottled water looked suspicious. But in the morning, things looked better. Our driver arrived with cold water and a 4-wheel drive Jeep to take us the 50 miles to the plantation, over rutted dirt roads. Finally, we arrived at the estate plantation, a bit rattled from the very bumpy ride.

As remote as this plantation is, in the hot and humid jungles of Borneo, it strikes me that the supply chain issues faced by this company are not that different from any other company large or small, rural or in a metro area. Here, in the wilds, the managers are worried about planning and forecasting, raw materials such as fertilizer and seeds, labor and transportation. Harvested product needs to be processed within 48 hours; shipped to the processing plant via rag top trucks. Then, processed product must get to market to meet customer demand. The managers worry about IT systems to capture production data and pay the workers. They do analysis for continuous process improvement.

The plantation workers live in plantation housing and their bare-foot children attend plantation schools. The people are poor, but very friendly. Hopefully, the year-round harvest is good, and too much of it won’t be eaten by tree rats or monkeys. Even rain can ruin the workday.

This is indeed the third world, but they must deal with first world global supply chains and technology. It is gratifying to know that the topics we master as supply chain professionals are truly universal. The skills we learn apply across industries and continents and cultures. The differences are fewer than we might expect.

It was an interesting adventure and about as far away from my Silicon Valley home as one could possibly get. At least at home, I don’t have to deal with monkeys…at least not that often.

I recently had the opportunity to travel from the US to Europe to Asia and rode in taxis in all three places. I was reminded that while a taxi ride may seem mundane, the differences are quite significant.

Take London, for example. The famous shiny black cabs are the pride of the city: neat, clean and the drivers are professionals who are required to take a test of their knowledge of London before they are allowed to drive a cab.

You will experience the complete opposite in a place like Chengdu, China, a city of 14 million people, where you risk your life when you go for a wild taxi ride…that is IF the taxi driver knows where you want to go and is willing to take you there, after you argue over the destination and the price. It’s the Wild, Wild West of China, where traffic laws and standard driving rules are still in the early development stages. When the ride is over, you’ll breathe a polluted, but grateful sigh of relief that you survived.

In Germany, the taxis are likely to be Mercedes Benz, which feels a little less threatening as the drivers go at break-neck speed to your destination. Everyone in Germany will tell you that speed is safe. What is it about the Germans and their love of speed?

Then there is Seoul, Korea. A taxi driver will simply refuse to take you anywhere he doesn’t want to go. And knowing the secret between black cabs (those drivers speak English) and the silver cab (good luck trying to communicate) is important to a successful journey.

Un-huh…then there is New York City: taxi drivers in stinky cabs honk at one another, people, cars, and trucks for seemingly no reason at all, all day long and all night long. On one journey in NYC, when I argued with the driver that my building was across the street in Times Square and I expected him to take me all the way there and not drop me in the middle of the chaos, he yelled at me, “get out of the cab, lady and walk!”

And San Francisco, where a drive through the steep hills at 0-60mph for every block, will take years off your life. The drivers are quite friendly and often chatty there, while they risk your life.

And then, there is Beijing. If you don’t ask for the driver to turn on the meter, you will get charged 5-10 times more for the fare than you should. On a recent trip from the Beijing airport to the Hilton Beijing, I asked for a meter cab. The driver took me to a side street across from the Hilton, instead of the entrance, and unloaded my bags. The fare was 58 RMB. I handed the driver 100 RMB and asked for change and a receipt. He got in his taxi and drove off with my 100. I should have known better.